Health Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

It's 271 days.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you. Ms. Gladu can be trusted for her accurate estimate.

That's not very much time to set out an educational regime in advance of cannabis being legalized in this country.

I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut with anybody that telling a 19-year-old, “If you give illicit cannabis to a 17-year-old, you're going to go to jail for 14 years,” is not going to have much impact in this country. Educating young people about responsible cannabis use would be a much better way to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Ms. Gladu, go ahead.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Further to my colleague's comments about public awareness and education, the Minister of Health did say that the Liberals were on their way with this rollout, but I received a copy of the RFP from Health Canada that's looking for a contractor to put together a public awareness and education program directed at young people and their influencers, which is what we heard in the testimony that we need to do. That RFP is not even due with bids until October 16. From then on, you'll have to start putting together the awareness program. With 271 days to go, certainly that's not going to happen anywhere near the rush date of July 2018.

Now, with respect to the age comment, this was exactly one of the reasons why the evidence we heard said we should raise the age, not lower it, because 18-year-olds hang out with 17-year-olds and 16-year-olds, and there was a concern that there would be transfer of marijuana to them. Witnesses from other jurisdictions had 21 as the age, and the Canadian Medical Association said that this was a compromise between the health harms that kids up to 25 would receive and understanding the prevention. The idea was that 21-year-olds don't hang out with 16-year-olds, so some prevention would happen.

I am disappointed not to see any age changes in this bill. We see that Alberta has come out with 21, and I think that would have been a better answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Davies, you had me right up until about this point, because your argument implies that, when a person is 18, everything is okay. Yet we heard testimony from physicians, from doctors, who told us that at 25 the brain is still maturing and damage can still be done. I'm a little puzzled as to why or whether you in fact are saying the age restriction really shouldn't apply. As I said, if it's unhealthy for an 18-year-old, or for someone who's 19 or 20, according to the testimony, why would we be so adamant not to allow the 17-year-olds to get hold of this stuff?

There's a little bit of a conflict there. Do you want to take an opportunity to try to explain that to me? I'm having some trouble with that one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'm simply making a comment based on the structure of the bill, where this bill sets out the minimum age of 18 for legal possession and use of cannabis. I'm not commenting that there shouldn't be an age limit. I think there should be an age limit. It's a thorny question whether that should be 18, 19, or 25. We heard evidence all around that question. My own view is that it should be 19, for a couple of reasons. One is, of course, the developing brain. That's one more year of brain development.

Second, I think your average high school student in this country is 18 or younger, so making the age 19, in my opinion, would be more helpful in keeping cannabis out of high schools. The way it is now at 18, half of your grade 12 class will be able to legally possess cannabis, and then that brings cannabis right into the high schools.

What I'm really talking about here, Mr. Van Kesteren, is what the proper penalty is. If the age is 18, what happens if you have a 19-year-old who gives some illicit cannabis to a 17-year-old? How do we properly deal with that? I'm saying that subjecting that person to a 14-year prison sentence is not the proper way to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Oliver.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

I want to address this age-limit issue again. We've certainly heard lots and lots of our health witnesses say that the age limit should be higher than 17. I think the CMA said it should be 21, and others have said that 25 is really the ideal age. What I heard is what we can do under federal acts and what can be done by the provinces and territories.

If we move the age limit for possession up, then someone charged with possession of five grams over the age of 17 would face full adult criminal charges. They would have a lasting record and would have to go through a much more significant criminal consequence, whereas if they're 17 or under, it would fall under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the records are sealed, and there's a chance for those records to be erased a number of years after the term is finished.

For me, it's really important that the provinces and territories understand that there is potentially a higher age that could be applied to restrict access to marijuana because of that developing brain and the impact on a developing brain. The provincial or territorial consequences aren't criminal. They can seize or they can fine and ticket, but it's not a criminal charge for people over the age of 17 at the provincial and territorial level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies, you can have a quick intervention.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

One of the interesting parts of this is this concept of the relative harms of tobacco, cannabis, and alcohol. The task force itself, the McLellan task force, found, as has every other major study, that relatively speaking, cannabis has less health impact on anybody than does alcohol or tobacco.

Interestingly, if we're going to talk about the developing brain, why aren't we talking about raising the age of consuming alcohol in this country, if that's the case? If the brain's developing and a 19-year-old can drink a bottle of scotch every single night, I can tell you that after five straight years of doing that, they're going to have brain damage. They're going to have cirrhosis of the liver, potentially. They're going to have all sorts of problems. We don't criminalize that. We don't say, you face a 14-year penalty in jail because of the developing brain when it comes to alcohol.

What is motivating my amendments here today is trying to situate cannabis. If we're going to legalize it, then situate it based on the evidence, in an appropriate manner, comparing it with other substances that we want to restrict to adults, which we know have potential health consequences. It doesn't make any sense, though, to retain 14-year criminal penalties for cannabis and not to have those for alcohol or tobacco, and that's exactly the absurdity of this provision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no further speakers, I'm going to call for a vote on NDP-21.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

As a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Now we go to NDP-22.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I'll be mercifully short. It would amend the criminal provision from 14 years down to nine years, again, not as the NDP's first choice. However, it has the virtue of allowing judges to give conditional sentences in cases where the crown proceeds by way of indictment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Seeing no further speakers, I call for a vote on NDP-22.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Could I have a recorded vote, please?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

(Clause 14 agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

We have no amendments for clauses 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20. Can I lump those together and ask for one vote on those clauses?

(Clauses 15 to 20 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 21)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Now, we go to Liberal-4.

Go ahead, Mr. Ayoub.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chairman, amendment LIB-4 is also intended to harmonize the English and French versions of the bill. It would amend clause 21 by replacing it, from line 19 on page 19, with the following:

It is prohibited to display, refer to or otherwise use any of the following, directly or indirectly in a promotion that is used in the sponsorship of a person, entity, event, activity or facility:

This amendment serves to make the distinction between the word “promotion” in the English version and the words “matériel relatif à la promotion” in the French version, and secondly, between the words “sponsorship of a person”, which are translated as “promotion d'une personne”. This is really technical. Unless there is some linguistic or grammatical reason, I am proposing this amendment to clarify the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Next, we have Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we talk about trying to make sure we don't have young people attracted to using marijuana, I was disappointed that there was no consideration given to preventing incentives to kids. We don't want to see cannabis cards with “buy 8, get 1 free” or any kind of financial incentives. In the promotion or in the following clauses, I would have thought that there would be amendments brought to protect kids on that. I was disappointed to not see those.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bill Casey]

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I support the amendment.

I wondered if any of the ministry officials could tell me if this type of regulatory prohibition on sponsorship is applied to alcohol. Do we know that?